This study investigated the importance of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) to planning effective reading programs. Participants were 53 mildly handicapped students and their 29 teachers who had been assigned randomly to CBM and control groups. Teachers implemented their CBM or control treatments for 15 weeks. After the treatment period, student records were inspected to divide the CBM participants into two implementation groups. The CBM-measurement only group comprised 15 students and 9 teachers; these teachers measured students' reading performance as required but did not use the assessment information to structure students' reading programs. The CBM–measurement with evaluation group comprised 21 students and 12 teachers; these teachers measured student performance and used the assessment information to design instructional programs. Analysis of variance revealed that, compared to the control group, pupils in the measurement with evaluation group achieved better than students in the measurement only group. Implications for instructional assessment activities are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brown, A.L., & Smiley, S.S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1–8.
2.
Cooley, W.W., & Lohnes, R.R. (1962). Multivariate procedures for behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley.
Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–382.
5.
Deno, S.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(8), 1–16.
6.
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513–516, 575–578.
7.
Fuchs, L.S. (1986). Monitoring the performance of mildly handicapped students: Review of current practice and research. Remedial and Special Education, 7(5), 5–12.
8.
Fuchs, L.S. (1987a). Improving data-based instruction through computer technology: Continuation application (Available from author).
9.
Fuchs, L.S. (1987b). Instructional planning with curriculum-based measurement. Unpublished manuscript. (Available from Lynn S. Fuchs, Box 328, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203).
10.
Fuchs, L.S. (1988). Relations among basic skills measures. Unpublished manuscript. (Available from Lynn S. Fuchs, Box 328, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203).
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Marston, D. (1983). Improving the reliability of curriculum-based measures of academic skills for psychoeducational decision making. Diagnostique, 6, 135–149.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1984). Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement of evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986a). Curriculum-based assessment of progress toward long-and short-term goals. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 69–82.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986b). Effects of systematic formative evaluation on student achievement. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (in press). Curriculum-based assessment. In C. Reynolds & R. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children (Vol. 1): Intelligence and achievement. New York: Guilford Press.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L. (in press). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Hasselbring, T.S. (1987). Using computers with curriculum-based progress monitoring: Effects on teacher efficiency and satisfaction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(4), 14–27.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of information reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20–29.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., Hamlett, C., & Fuchs, D. (1988). Computer applications to curriculum-based measurement. Unpublished computer program, Nashville, TN.
20.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Warren, L.M. (1982). Special education practice in evaluating student progress toward goals (Research Report No. 81). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 224 197).
Germann, G., & Tindal, G. (1985). An application of curriculum-based assessment: The use of direct and frequent measurement. Exceptional Children, 52, 244–265.
23.
Gickling, E.E. (1981). The forgotten learner. Nevada Public Affairs Review, 1, 19–22.
24.
Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
25.
Jenkins, J.R., Heliotis, J., Haynes, M., & Beck, K. (1986). Does passive learning account for disabled readers' comprehension deficits in ordinary reading situations?Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 69–75.
26.
Jenkins, J.R., Mayhall, W., Peshka, C., & Townsend, V. (1974). Using direct and daily measures to increase learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 604–608.
27.
Jenkins, J.R., Pious, C., & Peterson, D. (1988). Categorical programs for remedial and handicapped students: Issues of validity. Exceptional Children, 55, 147–158.
28.
Leinhart, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. (1981). Reading instruction and its effects. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 343–362.
29.
Marston, D., Mirkin, P.K., & Deno, S.L. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification of learning disabled students. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 109–118.
30.
Mirkin, P.K., & Potter, M.L. (1982). A survey of program planning and implementation practices of LD teachers (Research Report No. 80). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
31.
Office of the Federal Register. (1986). Code of federal regulations, Parts 300--399. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
Richards, C.E. (1988). Indicators and three types of educational monitoring systems: Implications for design. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 495–498.
33.
Semmel, M.I., Lieber, J., & Peck, C.A. (1986). Effects of special education environments. In C.J. Meisel (Ed.), Mainstreaming handicapped children: Outcomes, controversies and new directions (pp. 165–192). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Shinn, M.R. (Ed.), (in press). Applications of curriculum-based measurement to the development of programs for mildly handicapped pupils. New York: Guilford Press.
35.
Shinn, M.R., Tindal, G.A., & Stein, S. (1988). Curriculum-based measurement and the identification of mildly handicapped students: A research review. Professional School Psychology, 3, 69–86.
36.
Sindelar, P.T., Allman, C., Monda, L., Vail, CO., & Wilson, C.L. (1988). The power of hypothesis testing in special education efficacy research. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 284–296.
37.
Sindelar, P.T., & Deno, S.L. (1978). The effectiveness of resource programming. The Journal of Special Education, 12, 17–28.
38.
Thompson, R.H., White, K.R., & Morgan, D.P. (1982). Teacher-student interaction patterns in classrooms with mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 220–236.
39.
Tindal, G., Fuchs, L.S., Mirkin, P.K., Christenson, S., & Deno, S.L. (1981). The relationship between student achievement and teacher assessment of short- or long-term goals (Research Report No. 61). Minneapolis: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 218 246).
40.
Tucker, J. (1987). Curriculum-based assessment is no fad. The Collaborative Educator, 1(4), 4, 10.
41.
Wesson, C., Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., Sevcik, B., Skiba, R., King, R.P., Tindal, G.A., & Maruyama, G. (1988). A causal analysis of the relationships among ongoing measurement and evaluation, structure of instruction, and student achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 330–343.
42.
Wesson, C., Fuchs, L.S., Tindal, G., Mirkin, P.K., & Deno, S.L. (1986). Facilitating the efficiency of ongoing curriculum-based measurement. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 166–172.
